Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: single-page return semantics, that filter state carries across pagination, and the required VENDORS read permission. That is exactly the kind of pre-call constraint an agent needs and it does not contradict the annotation. Missing detail on page-size defaults or total-count behavior keeps it off a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, how to paginate, and what authorization it needs. The pagination constraint is stated before the permission note, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter, unannotated-beyond-readOnly filter tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum acknowledge that filtering by type/active/modified-date is available. As written, an agent knows it lists vendors and paginates, but not that the request can be narrowed at all — a significant gap given zero schema documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the entire burden and provides essentially nothing: it never mentions type, active, orderby, limit, offset, or the two lastModifiedDateTime bounds. 'Preserves filters' only implies that filters exist. An agent would have to infer the filter semantics entirely from parameter names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource ('List Propertyware vendors') that clearly distinguishes the collection endpoint from the sibling propertyware_get_vendor. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction from the plural form.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit operational guidance: the result is one page and the following page must be fetched via 'next', which preserves filters. This is a real usage rule rather than a restatement. It stops short of saying when-not to use it or pointing at alternative listing tools, and 'next' is not a declared parameter, leaving a small ambiguity about how that call is made.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.